Dragan Glas wrote:Given the sheer number of chemical reactions that have occurred since the Big Bang until a specific atom ends up in a specific position in your right hand, the probability of it happening is zero.

Kindest regards,

James

well prove it, show me your math

There are an estimated 1078 and 1082 atoms in the observable universe.

How many chemical reactions do you think could occur at any one moment?

Given that our space-time continuum is some 13.8 billion years old, how many chemical reactions has occurred at every moment of that time?

And this is only the visible universe, whose diameter is estimated at 46 billion light years.

Even if the actual universe isn't infinite, due to expansion, at some time in the future it will be.

And, as I already pointed out, what is the probability that a specific atom will be in a specific point in the universe after a specific amount of time has passed?

The odds are such that the probability of it occurring is zero.

Kindest regards,

James

"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."The Age Of Reason

Given the sheer number of chemical reactions that have occurred since the Big Bang until a specific atom ends up in a specific position in your right hand, the probability of it happening is zero.

Kindest regards,

James

well prove it, show me your math

Let's look at this in a different way to also show "zero probability" also happening.

You exist. (I assume...)

Not only were you were one in a hundred million or so sperm that got shot into a woman at just the right time to not only find an egg available for fertilizing but outrace all the rest to the prize and, assuming a best case scenario that your dad held his load for that one fortunate shot, there was at best a 74 or so day window in which the sperm that became you was alive in the nut waiting for that opportunity total meaning any event could have changed things... your dad waxing the carrot the night before requiring a reload, a temperature change killing off existing sperm requiring a reload, etc. So already the probability of you existing is negligible. Then take into account all the factors that even led your father to meeting your mother, all the factors that went into your father and mother both even being conceived, and take that negligibility back dozens, hundreds of generations into your ancestral past. The odds that, standing on a hilltop overlooking the African wilderness a million years ago, events would lead to you even being born are so incredibly tiny as to be effectively, mathematically recognized as zero.

Yet... here you are.

However... the fact that you do exist means (if I have this right) that the probability of you existing is actually 1 because it already happened even though the odds were effectively zero against it happening. (I may have the terminology wrong, someone please correct...)

Dragan Glas wrote:There are an estimated 1078 and 1082 atoms in the observable universe.

How many chemical reactions do you think could occur at any one moment?

Given that our space-time continuum is some 13.8 billion years old, how many chemical reactions has occurred at every moment of that time?

And this is only the visible universe, whose diameter is estimated at 46 billion light years.

Even if the actual universe isn't infinite, due to expansion, at some time in the future it will be.

And, as I already pointed out, what is the probability that a specific atom will be in a specific point in the universe after a specific amount of time has passed?

The odds are such that the probability of it occurring is zero.

I'm sorry but I have to agree with leroy here, the product of two finite numbers is a finite number. It's not 0, and I have a hard time thinking of a concrete real-world example of something with a probability of 0. Because there isn't anything in reality known, at the present time, to be infinite. The universe could be infinite in extend beyond the horizon of our local cosmic expansion, or it could be infinitely old, or there could be an infinite and endless amount of local inflations, or a whole host of other logical possibilities. But we simply don't know whether any of these things are the case. And it isn't necessary to argue about any of this in order to show that leroy's original "hunch" is wrong.

Dragan Glas wrote:There are an estimated 1078 and 1082 atoms in the observable universe.

How many chemical reactions do you think could occur at any one moment?

Given that our space-time continuum is some 13.8 billion years old, how many chemical reactions has occurred at every moment of that time?

And this is only the visible universe, whose diameter is estimated at 46 billion light years.

Even if the actual universe isn't infinite, due to expansion, at some time in the future it will be.

And, as I already pointed out, what is the probability that a specific atom will be in a specific point in the universe after a specific amount of time has passed?

The odds are such that the probability of it occurring is zero.

I'm sorry but I have to agree with leroy here, the product of two finite numbers is a finite number. It's not 0, and I have a hard time thinking of a concrete real-world example of something with a probability of 0. Because there isn't anything in reality known, at the present time, to be infinite. The universe could be infinite in extend beyond the horizon of our local cosmic expansion, or it could be infinitely old, or there could be an infinite and endless amount of local inflations, or a whole host of other logical possibilities. But we simply don't know whether any of these things are the case. And it isn't necessary to argue about any of this in order to show that leroy's original "hunch" is wrong.

I take your point, Rumraket, and I'm not denying that the product of two finite numbers is a finite number, however, if that product is so large that dividing 1 by it is infinitesimal - ie, it approaches zero - I think that, in practical terms it would suffice.

And, regarding both your point, and hack's seconding of it, about contradicting leroy just for the sake of it, I trust you'll accept I'm not simply being contrarian.

Kindest regards,

James

"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."The Age Of Reason

Dragan Glas wrote:I take your point, Rumraket, and I'm not denying that the product of two finite numbers is a finite number, however, if that product is so large that dividing 1 by it is infinitesimal - ie, it approaches zero - I think that, in practical terms it would suffice.

And, regarding both your point, and hack's seconding of it, about contradicting leroy just for the sake of it, I trust you'll accept I'm not simply being contrarian.

Kindest regards,

James

I have to admit I took it as "effectively zero" and not "literally zero".

Dragan Glas wrote:There are an estimated 1078 and 1082 atoms in the observable universe.

How many chemical reactions do you think could occur at any one moment?

Given that our space-time continuum is some 13.8 billion years old, how many chemical reactions has occurred at every moment of that time?

And this is only the visible universe, whose diameter is estimated at 46 billion light years.

Even if the actual universe isn't infinite, due to expansion, at some time in the future it will be.

And, as I already pointed out, what is the probability that a specific atom will be in a specific point in the universe after a specific amount of time has passed?

The odds are such that the probability of it occurring is zero.

I'm sorry but I have to agree with leroy here, the product of two finite numbers is a finite number. It's not 0, and I have a hard time thinking of a concrete real-world example of something with a probability of 0. Because there isn't anything in reality known, at the present time, to be infinite. The universe could be infinite in extend beyond the horizon of our local cosmic expansion, or it could be infinitely old, or there could be an infinite and endless amount of local inflations, or a whole host of other logical possibilities. But we simply don't know whether any of these things are the case. And it isn't necessary to argue about any of this in order to show that leroy's original "hunch" is wrong.

You are putting hackenslash´s poppets in a very hard situation,

If they grant your point they would have to admit that I was correct and that hackenslash was wrong, and they would have to admit that they accept by default any statement made by an atheist and reject by default any statement made by a theist, even when they don't know what are they talking about.

if they reject your point, they would have to prove something that they know they cant, namely that events where someone chooses from an infinite pool of options [size=150]happen all the time[/size]

Dragan was wise enough and his solution was to pretend that he misunderstood hackenslash´s statement, lets see if other poppets can also find a way out of this dilema.

Dragan Glas wrote:I take your point, Rumraket, and I'm not denying that the product of two finite numbers is a finite number, however, if that product is so large that dividing 1 by it is infinitesimal - ie, it approaches zero - I think that, in practical terms it would suffice.

And, regarding both your point, and hack's seconding of it, about contradicting leroy just for the sake of it, I trust you'll accept I'm not simply being contrarian.

Kindest regards,

James

I have to admit I took it as "effectively zero" and not "literally zero".

hackenslash clary and unambiguously was talking about literally zero, ...............we all know and grant that events with very low probability happen all the time.

I have 2 points that are unrelated to hackenslash statement.

1 would you say that the probability of winning my hypothetical lottery (as explained in the first post) is effectively zero?

2 this is a tricky question that commits a fallacy, but the fallacy is not very obvious lets see if any of you can detect it.

If events with very low probability happen all the time, (as we all agree) then why do you have so many problems in accepting that the similarities in chimps and humans (ERVs for example) are just a product of chance? ............why couldn't humans and chimps have the same retroviral infections in the same locations independently simply by chance..............this is very unlikely but unlikely events happen all the time?

Rumraket wrote:. ., or it (the universe)could be infinitely old, or there could be an infinite and endless amount of local inflations, or a whole host of other logical possibilities. But we simply don't know whether any of these things are the case. And it isn't necessary to argue about any of this in order to show that leroy's original "hunch" is wrong.

I would argue that those possibilities are logically incoherent, but I am open to any evidence that suggests otherwise.

for example....

the age of the universe is given by the sum of all seconds that have occurred from the beginning, if the age of the universe where infinite, that would mean that I was born after an infinite amount of seconds which sounds logically absurd, given that there is no such thing as "after" and infinite amount of seconds,

sure you can always say that time as we know it is finite, and that there was some sort of different time in the past, but I see no reason to adopt that kind of wild interpretations of time. .........but I am open to any evidence that proves otherwise.

Grumpy Santa wrote:I have to admit I took it as "effectively zero" and not "literally zero".

hackenslash clary and unambiguously was talking about literally zero, ...............we all know and grant that events with very low probability happen all the time.

I have 2 points that are unrelated to hackenslash statement.

1 would you say that the probability of winning my hypothetical lottery (as explained in the first post) is effectively zero?

2 this is a tricky question that commits a fallacy, but the fallacy is not very obvious lets see if any of you can detect it.

If events with very low probability happen all the time, (as we all agree) then why do you have so many problems in accepting that the similarities in chimps and humans (ERVs for example) are just a product of chance? ............why couldn't humans and chimps have the same retroviral infections in the same locations independently simply by chance..............this is very unlikely but unlikely events happen all the time?

1. The way you describe that lottery where each successive day gets increasingly more and more difficult (which is an unusual way to do it...) I would have to agree that, while not impossible, it does soon become effectively zero the longer you go without winning. (Effectively zero over the course of a human lifespan at least.)

"If events with very low probability happen all the time, (as we all agree) then why do you have so many problems in accepting that the similarities in chimps and humans (ERVs for example) are just a product of chance?"

Well, in this case because we know for a fact that the insertions of ERVs, for example, are passed along to descendants. You're talking about the insertion of a string of DNA into already existing DNA at a known location in that DNA which can be traced back through populations. We know ERV insertions happen and are inheritable. The odds of an identical chunk of DNA from a specific virus being inserted into the same place in the genome of two different species is ridiculously tiny, effectively zero. However the insertion of a piece of DNA into an ancestor which then gets passed along through the generations is much higher. It only had to happen once where as the "happened twice" thought adds so many levels of complications on things. So really it's based on what we know happens... insertions have happened, they're inheritable, we can trace them across species sometimes to identify when the insertions occurred (often using mutations that happen later in the inserted DNA), etc.

When it happens in an individual you don't need to consider the odds of it happening, for it did. It happened at this particular spot in the DNA and that individual went on to breed successfully passing the new DNA insertion along to its descendants. It doesn't matter where in the genome, it doesn't matter how much, it happened and we know it. However when you try to then claim the exact same strand occurred in the exact same spot in multiple species and was successfully passed along that you need to consider the probability of that happening vs. what we know can happen with an individual.

Rumraket wrote:. ., or it (the universe)could be infinitely old, or there could be an infinite and endless amount of local inflations, or a whole host of other logical possibilities. But we simply don't know whether any of these things are the case. And it isn't necessary to argue about any of this in order to show that leroy's original "hunch" is wrong.

I would argue that those possibilities are logically incoherent, but I am open to any evidence that suggests otherwise.

I'd like to see such an argument.

for example....

the age of the universe is given by the sum of all seconds that have occurred from the beginning

If the universe is infinitely old, it has no beginning. It doesn't mean the beginning is infinitely far away in the past, but that there is none.

Think of this analogy. Take the number line with all the positive an negative integers. There is no smallest integer (a "first" negative number), just as there is no biggest integer. It extends infinitely and endlessly into the negatives, and it extends infinitely and endlessly into the positive. It is infinite and endless in both directions. Time could logically be like that. I'm not saying time IS like that, I simply don't know. I merely point this out to show that, in and of itself, an endless and infinite dimension of time does not imply any logical "absurdities"(whatever you mean by that), otherwise you'd be forced to argue that mathematics is logically absurd. And I don't think you want to do that.

if the age of the universe where infinite, that would mean that I was born after an infinite amount of seconds which sounds logically absurd

Why is it logically absurd? You say this, but there is no demonstration of it. Explain the absurdity, and explain exactly what you mean by absurdity. Do you mean it implies a contradiction in logic? Or something else?

given that there is no such thing as "after" and infinite amount of seconds

Why is there no such thing? You assert this, but I don't see why? Why can't there be an infinite amount of seconds in the past?

sure you can always say that time as we know it is finite, and that there was some sort of different time in the past, but I see no reason to adopt that kind of wild interpretations of time.

Rumraket wrote:I would argue that those possibilities are logically incoherent, but I am open to any evidence that suggests otherwise.

I'd like to see such an argument. [/quote]

Well pretend that I tell you that I will give you a chocolate after an infinite amount of time.............will you ever receive that chocolate? (the answer is no)

In the same way, if I tell you that you where born after an infinite amount of years, would you have reached the point that you where born (I would say that the answer is no)

So the fact that you where born at some point in time, proves that a finite amount of years has occurred.............In the same way if you ever receive a chocolate you can safely say that a finite amount of years occurred.

otherwise you'd be forced to argue that mathematics is logically absurd. And I don't think you want to do that.

I am not arguing that math is logically absurd, I would argue that you can represent absurdities mathematically.

things live negative distances, 2.5 dimensions and 2i computers can be represented mathematically but I Would argue that these are logical absurdities, an infinite number of seconds would also fall in this category.

My point is that just because you can represent a negative distance mathematically does not prove that the concept of a negative distance is coherent.

I am defining absurdity as something that cant exist in any possible world, things like squared circles and married batchers are absurdities,...........and I would argue that things like negative distances and infinite number of seconds are also absurdities................things like flying monkeys are presumably imposible, but they are not absurd because there are possible worlds with flying monkeys.

obviously I don't claim to have absolute proof for this, but I am not familiar with any good argument that suggests otherwise

leroy wrote:I am not arguing that math is logically absurd, I would argue that you can represent absurdities mathematically.

things live negative distances, 2.5 dimensions and 2i computers can be represented mathematically but I Would argue that these are logical absurdities, an infinite number of seconds would also fall in this category.

My point is that just because you can represent a negative distance mathematically does not prove that the concept of a negative distance is coherent.

I am defining absurdity as something that cant exist in any possible world, things like squared circles and married batchers are absurdities,...........and I would argue that things like negative distances and infinite number of seconds are also absurdities................things like flying monkeys are presumably imposible, but they are not absurd because there are possible worlds with flying monkeys.

obviously I don't claim to have absolute proof for this, but I am not familiar with any good argument that suggests otherwise

What I always find ironic is theists arguing that inifinites (actual or otherwise) are logically absurd but defending that existence in 0 time and in 0 space is not.

It's always suprising how one person's "logical absurdities" depend on the beliefs that adopted independent of logical reasons.

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians

leroy wrote:I am not arguing that math is logically absurd, I would argue that you can represent absurdities mathematically.

things live negative distances, 2.5 dimensions and 2i computers can be represented mathematically but I Would argue that these are logical absurdities, an infinite number of seconds would also fall in this category.

My point is that just because you can represent a negative distance mathematically does not prove that the concept of a negative distance is coherent.

I am defining absurdity as something that cant exist in any possible world, things like squared circles and married batchers are absurdities,...........and I would argue that things like negative distances and infinite number of seconds are also absurdities................things like flying monkeys are presumably imposible, but they are not absurd because there are possible worlds with flying monkeys.

obviously I don't claim to have absolute proof for this, but I am not familiar with any good argument that suggests otherwise

What I always find ironic is theists arguing that inifinites (actual or otherwise) are logically absurd but defending that existence in 0 time and in 0 space is not.

It's always suprising how one person's "logical absurdities" depend on the beliefs that adopted independent of logical reasons.

I don't see any good reason to think that 0 time and 0 space are logically absurd, Many Mathematicians (I believe most of them) believe that numbers are platonic objects with 0 space and 0 time.

hackenslashs statement on events with zero probability happen all the time, is based on the assumption that Platonism is true ...........And you seem to have agreed with hackenslash

I don t see any irony, honestly what is suppose to be ironic?

just for the record, are you saying that 0 space is logically absurd? (yes or no)

leroy wrote:Well pretend that I tell you that I will give you a chocolate after an infinite amount of time.............will you ever receive that chocolate? (the answer is no)

And there's a good reason for that, namely that you can't actually count to infinity, so you'd have no way of arriving at it. However:

In the same way, if I tell you that you where born after an infinite amount of years, would you have reached the point that you where born (I would say that the answer is no)

This is not a commensurate situation, and only shows that you still have no fucking clue when it comes to infinity. This argument is exactly the same as saying that there are no points on a line, which is clearly bollocks.

leroy wrote:hackenslashs statement on events with zero probability happen all the time, is based on the assumption that Platonism is true

No it isn't. From which orifice did you extract this idiotic arse-gravy? It has exactly fuck all to do with Platonism, not least because it's demonstrably true, as I have demonstrated. That you're too stupid to understand the demonstration is really not my problem.

leroy wrote:Well pretend that I tell you that I will give you a chocolate after an infinite amount of time.............will you ever receive that chocolate? (the answer is no)

And there's a good reason for that, namely that you can't actually count to infinity, so you'd have no way of arriving at it. However:

In the same way, if I tell you that you where born after an infinite amount of years, would you have reached the point that you where born (I would say that the answer is no)

This is not a commensurate situation, and only shows that you still have no fucking clue when it comes to infinity. This argument is exactly the same as saying that there are no points on a line, which is clearly bollocks.

points and lines are abstract objects, are you suggesting that time (or a second) is also an abstract (platonic object)?

as I said before, I am open to the possibility of infinite, time, the first step is to prove that an infinite amount of seconds is logically possible,